S.B.Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs :- "(A) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner after 31.8.94 and to finalise the financial settlement including the voluntary retirement benefit as per Scheme of March, 1995; (B) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the excess benefit of Rs.100/- from month of December, 1993 to August, 1994 first and then upto date; (C) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the gratuity Provident fund and other benefits with the Scheme of March 1995 and allow the petitioner to stay in the quarter till May, 1997; (D) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to get the chance of voluntary retirement benefit as per Scheme of March 1995; (E) A Writ of and/or in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents to transmit all the papers and documents to this Hon'ble Court within the date fixed by this Hon'ble Court and consider all applications;" The petitioner has resignation voluntarily
(2.) The petitioner was directed to be released with effect from 31.7.94 by an order dated 27.6.94, but again by an order dated 31.8.94, he was released from the services of the respondent company with effect from 31.8.94. Admittedly, a sum of Rs. 3,51,853.50P., had been paid to the petitioner. A further sum of Rs. 12,000/- has also been paid to the petitioner.
(3.) Mr. Maity, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits with reference to paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-reply that in the meantime, the petitioner had withdrawn his offer of voluntary retirement by a letter dated 23.5.94. It is stated by Mr. Maity, that a copy of the said letter was annexed to an application for grant of an appropriate order which is not on record. The stand taken in the affidavit-in-reply evidently appears to be by way of after thought. Had the petitioner withdrawn his offer of voluntary retirement in terms of scheme framed by the respondent corporation, prayers in the writ application would have been otherwise. In this view of the matter, having accepted the amount payable under the voluntary retirement scheme, the petitioner is estopped and precluded from questioning the acceptance of his aforementioned offer of voluntary retirement. However, it appears from annexure 'R' to the application for appropriate order which is a letter dated 24/28.4.97, it appears that one Mr. A.K. Dalal, the Assistant General Manager, Finance, has written to the petitioner to the following effect : "? In order to enable us to settle the outstanding payment relating to gratuity and Providend Fund, the following action should be taken by Shri Sarkar. (a) He should vacate the quarter forthwith and the dues certificate should be produced to our Rourkela Unit to enable them release of gratuity amount after recovery of outstanding dues. (b) The court case should be withdrawn. (c) for settlement of provident fund dues, necessary application in the prescribed form may be made by Shri Sarkar and the same may be routed through Rourkela unit.?" The attitude on the part of the respondent's aforementioned-officer in asking the petitioner to withdraw the case before the amount of gratuity and provident fund would be paid to him cannot be appreciated. It in fact amounts to contempt of this curt. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited is a State within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its officers are expected to behave in the manner which is conducive of becoming an officer of a State. The petitioner has filed a writ application, the same can be fought out in court of law; but it was wholly improper on the part of the said Sri A.K. Dalal who asked the petitioner to withdraw the application so as to enable him to obtain payments relating to gratuity and provident fund.;